Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[JaysonR]

It's just a footnote and not a thesis. Hardly worth working up a head of steam about.

Rather than speculate needlessly on supposed 'implications' one could easily investigate if one were really serious about this.

If this is just a conveniently blunt instrument to attack Carrier, then never mind.

Why would I need to attack Carrier?
It's a simple point: if one doesn't bother addressing, then one hasn't even considered some positions in their proposition.

It has nothing to do with discounting Carrier's thesis in itself.

Would we think the same of me if I held that everyone who could not read Greek was not worth listening to, and only those propositions coming from those who can read Greek are worth the note of being possibly valid?

 

[Brainache]

Many of the works on HJ were purely sensational and un-evidenced, dejuror?

No doubt and it still happens today.

The earlier critical works of Bauer, Straus, the Dutch Radicals and others, resulted in a major backlash, mostly by way of liberal-critical Christology as from around the 1870s.

A whole number of treatises were produced trying to place or rationalize Jesus within his Jewish environment. Trouble is, the more they examined the world in which Jesus is said to have lived, the stranger he seemed, with everything he’s supposed to have thought or did already in earlier literature. The Protestant theologians, which is what they mostly were, in the end retreated more and more into mindless sophistry.

Hartmann and Kalthoff were probably the first to swim against the tide, rejecting this whole approach.

Things aren’t always as simple as you, or Wikipedia, inevitably try to make them.

Shame those earlier Scholars didn't have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts, isn't it?

 

[David Mo]

You put question marks to show that you don’t know what you are arguing about??

I don’t know what you have in mind with this question.

I have not introduced "the question" of dating the Pauline epistles. It's not me who has done that. Countless sceptical authors had argued about the dates when any such letters were actually written.

Obvious. I was referring to this forum.

But the "doubt" that I raised and which you are complaining about, was not about the dates. It was about two other entirely different issues with the content of those letters. And I just spelt that out to you in the previous post.

The main point is that you have stated: “We cannot know what any original writing actually said" because “We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (…) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD” and because “in the case of Paul’s letters for example - the earliest relatively complete and readable copy we have, is said to be P46”.This is absolutely coherent with your previous claims of the lack of reliability as witnesses of the manuscripts written several centuries after by anonymous writers.

It is an evident and logical conclusion that if you are right, nothing that is written in the Pauline epistles has any relevance to discuss the problem of Jesus' existence.

So that’s why your position rejects in fact the Pauline epistles as relevant documents to discuss our current issue. I don't know if you are unaware of this, but if you put in parenthesis the date of the epistles they are invalid as evidence about the actual Jesus.

Plato’s letters are similar to Paul’s? You mean to claim that Plato says he met James as the brother of Jesus? Because it's the origin of, and meaning of, that particular line that we are (yet again) arguing about.

Ha, ha! Very funny. Plato didn’t speak of the brother of the Lord. He spoke of Dionysus, the Syracuse tyrant. It is a similar case in order to discuss about the criteria to dating ancient texts, especially your intent to invalidate the Pauline epistles. Sorry, I have forgotten that you don't invalidate the Pauline epistles; you only said that we can not know what actually they said.

Well nobody is rejecting either Plato or Paul. Where did you think I claimed we had to discard all of Paul's writing?

No, no, by Jove! You only said that we can not know what they actually said. But this is not to reject or to invalidate them.

We were talking only about those few words added in the form of an afterthought etc. etc.

Sorry, I know what we were discussing. But I propose a previous theme.

If you have now changed your mind and you think we can estimate the date of Pauline epistles about half-way of the First Century, we can leave this discussion for another occasion.

 

[DougW]

I don’t know about USA history professors, but otherwise haven’t come across a single one, or read any text by one, who taught that Jesus actually existed. Instead, they invariably start off by stating what Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, etc happen to believe.

Disproving a negative of course isn’t the easiest thing. And Jesus historicity can only be disproved by demonstrating that there is insufficient evidence to believe in his existence plus, sufficient evidence to disbelieve. Or, by demonstrating that all the available evidence favors a theory other than historicity.

History’s conclusions are for the most part arrived at by that which seems the most probable, and it strikes me as fairly conclusive that non-historicity comes out on top on all counts.

You’d probably prefer a fifty page rundown on Christianity’s first two centuries, not forgetting the ‘Jesus evolution’ traceable through the numerous gospels, Epistles, Proverbs, Sayings, Apocalypses, Revelations, and Acts, but not today.

On the other hand, you may well prefer:

Christianity is different from all those other religions, and Jesus is different from all those other dying-and-rising sons of gods.

There are more elements of Paul and the Gospels that make more sense if there was a real Jesus.

Lots of real historical people are unattested until generations later, or not at all.

You can’t invent a whole man in just one generation of story telling.

 

[Brainache]

I don’t know about USA history professors, but otherwise haven’t come across a single one, or read any text by one, who taught that Jesus actually existed. Instead, they invariably start off by stating what Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, etc happen to believe.

Disproving a negative of course isn’t the easiest thing. And Jesus historicity can only be disproved by demonstrating that there is insufficient evidence to believe in his existence plus, sufficient evidence to disbelieve. Or, by demonstrating that all the available evidence favors a theory other than historicity.

History’s conclusions are for the most part arrived at by that which seems the most probable, and it strikes me as fairly conclusive that non-historicity comes out on top on all counts.

You’d probably prefer a fifty page rundown on Christianity’s first two centuries, not forgetting the ‘Jesus evolution’ traceable through the numerous gospels, Epistles, Proverbs, Sayings, Apocalypses, Revelations, and Acts, but not today.

On the other hand, you may well prefer:

Christianity is different from all those other religions, and Jesus is different from all those other dying-and-rising sons of gods.

There are more elements of Paul and the Gospels that make more sense if there was a real Jesus.

Lots of real historical people are unattested until generations later, or not at all.

You can’t invent a whole man in just one generation of story telling.

I'd settle for an understanding of the cultural context of Second Temple Judaism and the types of cults and sects that existed at that time.

I'd settle for the probability that one of the many "Messianic" pretenders who was executed by the Romans and/or their Jewish collaborators had a group of followers who rationalised their "Messiah's" failure to live up to expectations by turning an execution into a "sacrifice".

I think a good case could be made for the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the DSS being at least one source for the HJ.

I don't know why you think Jesus isn't considered Historically evidenced by just about every Professional Historian in the world who has looked into the subject. Carrier is the only exception that I know of, and he apparently has a low opinion of other Scholars and a very high opinion of himself.

ETA: I don't know why you think anyone would need to invent a failed Messiah, when the Jews were producing plenty of real failed Messiahs from at least the time of Judas The Galilean, up until the fall of the Temple.

 

[IanS]

I don’t know what you have in mind with this question.



Obvious. I was referring to this forum.



The main point is that you have stated: “We cannot know what any original writing actually said" because “We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (…) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD” and because “in the case of Paul’s letters for example - the earliest relatively complete and readable copy we have, is said to be P46”.This is absolutely coherent with your previous claims of the lack of reliability as witnesses of the manuscripts written several centuries after by anonymous writers.

It is an evident and logical conclusion that if you are right, nothing that is written in the Pauline epistles has any relevance to discuss the problem of Jesus' existence.

So that’s why your position rejects in fact the Pauline epistles as relevant documents to discuss our current issue. I don't know if you are unaware of this, but if you put in parenthesis the date of the epistles they are invalid as evidence about the actual Jesus.



Ha, ha! Very funny. Plato didn’t speak of the brother of the Lord. He spoke of Dionysus, the Syracuse tyrant. It is a similar case in order to discuss about the criteria to dating ancient texts, especially your intent to invalidate the Pauline epistles. Sorry, I have forgotten that you don't invalidate the Pauline epistles; you only said that we can not know what actually they said.



No, no, by Jove! You only said that we can not know what they actually said. But this is not to reject or to invalidate them.




Sorry, I know what we were discussing. But I propose a previous theme.

If you have now changed your mind and you think we can estimate the date of Pauline epistles about half-way of the First Century, we can leave this discussion for another occasion.

What on earth are you still arguing about? You appear to be just conducting a juvenile personalised vendetta whereby for the last 6 months, if not over a year now, you have repeatedly tried accuse me of operating some sort of double-standard by claiming that I am using Paul’s letters to present a case against HJ whilst at the same time telling you that Paul’s letters are unreliable as evidence of Jesus. But if that is the argument you are pursuing, then your claim is entirely 100% bogus!

It is not me who has introduced Paul’s letters as evidence against Jesus. The fact of the matter is that it is everyone on the HJ side, i.e. biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, theologians and Christians for the past 2000 years, who have all presented Paul’s letters saying they provide evidence of Jesus.

That is the only reason anyone is discussing the contents of Paul’s letters at all, i.e. because it is the HJ side who propose those letters as evidence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman for example uses those three words “the lords brother” as his strongest possible evidence showing, as he claims it, absolute “certainty” that Jesus exists.

All that I have done, and all that sceptical authors for the past 100 years have done, is to point out why that evidence of Paul’s letters proposed by the HJ side, is NOT actually the reliable or credible evidence that Bible scholars, theologians and Christians have claimed it to be for the past 2000 years.

Are you trying to claim that when bible scholars like Ehrman quote Paul’s letters as "certain" evidence of Jesus, then sceptics cannot point out why he is wrong to make that claim from NT writing such as Paul's letters? Only the HJ side is allowed to use the gospels and Paul’s letters saying its certain evidence of Jesus? And no sceptics are allowed to point out why their claims are wrong?

It’s not me or any other sceptics who are introducing Paul’s letters as evidence against Jesus. The fact of the matter is that the precise opposite is true - it’s the HJ side who are presenting Paul’s letters claiming that the words “the lords brother” are strong evidence of Jesus (Ehrman says that it’s a matter of “certainty”). But if the HJ side presents something like that as their evidence then it’s only right and proper that sceptics like me will point out why their evidence from Paul, i.e. the evidence they claim from Paul, is not the reliable or credible evidence that THEY claim it to be.

And as far as any comparison with Plato is concerned - we are not talking here about Plato! And afaik, Plato never claimed that the gospels and Paul’s letters provided evidence of a living Jesus! So please stop trying make bogus analogies to people like Plato who have absolutely nothing to do with the claimed evidence of Jesus from NT writing such as Paul’s letters.

 

[proudfootz]

Why would I need to attack Carrier?

I don't think anyone needs to - if someone has questions about an off-the-cuff remark they could have them answered.

It's a simple point: if one doesn't bother addressing, then one hasn't even considered some positions in their proposition.

If anyone were interested in finding out if this accusation were true, they could ask. If one doesn't care whether it is true they could blow it up into a big controversy.

It has nothing to do with discounting Carrier's thesis in itself.

Would we think the same of me if I held that everyone who could not read Greek was not worth listening to, and only those propositions coming from those who can read Greek are worth the note of being possibly valid?

If you were to make some ambiguous statement, certainly your fellow posters could ask you to elucidate further.

Nowhere in the quoted remarks does Carrier suggest 'dismissing' scholarship from earlier eras. That is a word inserted into the text by readers who are less than careful in their paraphrase of the text.

 

[proudfootz]

I don’t know about USA history professors, but otherwise haven’t come across a single one, or read any text by one, who taught that Jesus actually existed. Instead, they invariably start off by stating what Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, etc happen to believe.

You'll find that, when it comes to bible studies, theologians are often confused with historians.

Disproving a negative of course isn’t the easiest thing. And Jesus historicity can only be disproved by demonstrating that there is insufficient evidence to believe in his existence plus, sufficient evidence to disbelieve. Or, by demonstrating that all the available evidence favors a theory other than historicity.

History’s conclusions are for the most part arrived at by that which seems the most probable, and it strikes me as fairly conclusive that non-historicity comes out on top on all counts.

The trend does seem to be one of casting a more critical eye on figures like Adam and Noah and Job and Moses than in former times.

You’d probably prefer a fifty page rundown on Christianity’s first two centuries, not forgetting the ‘Jesus evolution’ traceable through the numerous gospels, Epistles, Proverbs, Sayings, Apocalypses, Revelations, and Acts, but not today.

The figure of Jesus appears to be very fungible.

On the other hand, you may well prefer:

Christianity is different from all those other religions, and Jesus is different from all those other dying-and-rising sons of gods.

There are more elements of Paul and the Gospels that make more sense if there was a real Jesus.

Lots of real historical people are unattested until generations later, or not at all.

You can’t invent a whole man in just one generation of story telling.

It's known that some early apologists admitted their dying-and-rising son of a god resembled the stories of other 'pagan' ones. What was obvious to people who lived in a 'pagan' culture is less obvious to those of us immersed in a christian culture.

 

[dejudge]

Really? All those History Professors teaching that there probably was an HJ must be pretty stupid then.

1. Dr. Dale Martin, an NT Professor at Yale, admitted he believes the REAL Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. He also prays to Jesus while he repeats the Nicene Creed.

2. Joseph Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, preaches and teaches that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Virgin and a Ghost. He also prays to Jesus.

3. Robert Eisenman, an Historian, admitted NO-ONE has ever solved the HJ question. Eisenman is associated with Multiple Crackpot theories about Jesus and Paul.


At a lecture on the Historical Jesus at Harvard by L Michael White it was noted that up to at least 1954 the Historical Jesus was a failure--NO-ONE was in a position to write a Life of Jesus after 200 years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

No one is any longer in the position to write a life of Jesus. This is the scarcely questioned and scarcely surprising result today [in 1954] of an inquiry which for almost 200 years has devoted prodigious and by no means fruitless effort to regain and expound the life of the historical Jesus, freed from all embellishments by dogma and doctrine. At the end of this research on the life of Jesus stands the recognition of its own failure.


These are the opening lines of Gunther Bornkamm's 1956 book, Jesus of Nazareth.......

Logical fallacies like the criterion of embarrassment are now used in the argument for an HJ after it was realized that there is NO evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[JaysonR]

Nowhere in the quoted remarks does Carrier suggest 'dismissing' scholarship from earlier eras. That is a word inserted into the text by readers who are less than careful in their paraphrase of the text.

Fascinating interpretation.

 

[proudfootz]

Fascinating interpretation.

Indeed.

Why someone would want to substitute their paraphrase when we have the actual text to examine seems to open up all kinds of questions.

But I guess the word 'dismiss' is so much more dramatic!

 

[JaysonR]

It had nothing to do with his thesis, as it wasn't even from his thesis, but his review of another work. It is, however, I feel, worth noting someone's general perception of an entire field.

What aim do you perceive me to have in this?

 

[proudfootz]

It had nothing to do with his thesis, as it wasn't even from his thesis, but his review of another work. It is, however, I feel, worth noting someone's general perception of an entire field.

What aim do you perceive me to have in this?

It hardly matters what aim I might perceive your having - you are a living person whom I can query (just as Carrier is alive and can be asked questions).

I can ask: what is the aim of mistakenly attributing to Carrier the aim of 'dismissing' scholarship?

 

[JaysonR]

I hardly see it as a mistake to understand that claiming pre-60's academia of the subject as inherently inferior to post-60's academia on a premise of sociological reasoning unfounded by data is very much dismissive within the context of the comment.

You viewed this as an attack upon Carrier, but I not once asserted that Carrier should therefore be dismissed, nor that his works were to be ignored.

I outlined the invalidity of that comment, and still stand by the notion of disagreement with that opinion of Carrier's regarding the academic community.

 

[proudfootz]

1. Dr. Dale Martin, an NT Professor at Yale, admitted he believes the REAL Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. He also prays to Jesus while he repeats the Nicene Creed.

2. Joseph Ratzinger, a Christian Scholar, preaches and teaches that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Virgin and a Ghost. He also prays to Jesus.

3. Robert Eisenman, an Historian, admitted NO-ONE has ever solved the HJ question. Eisenman is associated with Multiple Crackpot theories about Jesus and Paul.

This is our 'secular academia' in action!

At a lecture on the Historical Jesus at Harvard by L Michael White it was noted that up to at least 1954 the Historical Jesus was a failure--NO-ONE was in a position to write a Life of Jesus after 200 years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/historical.html

I think the term is 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man' the more we know the less 'historical Jesus' we find.

Logical fallacies like the criterion of embarrassment are now used in the argument for an HJ after it was realized that there is NO evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

It seems these 'criteria' employed by bible scholars are an attempt to distill useful information from materials historians consider to be useless.

 

[proudfootz]

I hardly see it as a mistake to understand that claiming pre-60's academia of the subject as inherently inferior to post-60's academia on a premise of sociological reasoning unfounded by data is very much dismissive within the context of the comment.

How much data are you expecting to find in a footnote?

If you have serious questions about the opinions of a living historian, you can ask. I suspect if you were to ask Dr Carrier about the foundations of his opinion he'd happily supply you with the reasoning behind the statement.

Obviously the choice is there to learn whether it is an opinion supported by reasoning, or to simply assume the worst possible construction on it.

Anyone whose first language is English can see for themselves Carrier does not 'dismiss' (as in 'not even addressing') pre-1960s scholarship - that is a 'fascinating interpretation' placed on it by persons who seem to prefer their own paraphrases for the actual text.

You viewed this as an attack upon Carrier, but I not once asserted that Carrier should therefore be dismissed, nor that his works were to be ignored.

I outlined the invalidity of that comment, and still stand by the notion of disagreement with that opinion of Carrier's regarding the academic community.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

I have outlined the invalidity of your argument, regardless of whether I agree with Carrier that our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity have been radically altered since the post-WWII period.

 

[Brainache]

I hardly see it as a mistake to understand that claiming pre-60's academia of the subject as inherently inferior to post-60's academia on a premise of sociological reasoning unfounded by data is very much dismissive within the context of the comment.

You viewed this as an attack upon Carrier, but I not once asserted that Carrier should therefore be dismissed, nor that his works were to be ignored.

I outlined the invalidity of that comment, and still stand by the notion of disagreement with that opinion of Carrier's regarding the academic community.

Well it seems you have to cheer on your favourite Academic, regardless of the arguments: "Gotta support the team!"

You are letting everyone down by being so impartial and informed, that's not how this is supposed to work.

If only you could be more cogent...

 

[proudfootz]

Well it seems you have to cheer on your favourite Academic, regardless of the arguments: "Gotta support the team!"

You are letting everyone down by being so impartial and informed, that's not how this is supposed to work.

If only you could be more cogent...

I'm just pointing out how Carrier is being damned for a paraphrase of his footnote.

It reminds me of the paraphrases of Pauline epistles which seem to constantly burble up as 'evidence' for HJ theories: Paul says he met disciples and Jesus's brother, when no such texts actually exist.

Now you're trying to make me sorry I taught you the word 'cogent' - how cute!

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

It reminds me of the paraphrases of Pauline epistles which seem to constantly burble up as 'evidence' for HJ theories: Paul says he met disciples and Jesus's brother, when no such texts actually exist.

Imagine my supriise, then, when I read...

I'm just pointing out how Carrier is being damned for a paraphrase of his footnote.

... and cannot find any place where Carrier has been damned.

 

[David Mo]

What on earth are you still arguing about? You appear to be just conducting a juvenile personalised vendetta whereby for the last 6 months, if not over a year now, you have repeatedly tried accuse me of operating some sort of double-standard by claiming that I am using Paul’s letters to present a case against HJ whilst at the same time telling you that Paul’s letters are unreliable as evidence of Jesus. But if that is the argument you are pursuing, then your claim is entirely 100% bogus!

It is not me who has introduced Paul’s letters as evidence against Jesus. The fact of the matter is that it is everyone on the HJ side, i.e. biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, theologians and Christians for the past 2000 years, who have all presented Paul’s letters saying they provide evidence of Jesus.

That is the only reason anyone is discussing the contents of Paul’s letters at all, i.e. because it is the HJ side who propose those letters as evidence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman for example uses those three words “the lords brother” as his strongest possible evidence showing, as he claims it, absolute “certainty” that Jesus exists.

All that I have done, and all that sceptical authors for the past 100 years have done, is to point out why that evidence of Paul’s letters proposed by the HJ side, is NOT actually the reliable or credible evidence that Bible scholars, theologians and Christians have claimed it to be for the past 2000 years.

Are you trying to claim that when bible scholars like Ehrman quote Paul’s letters as "certain" evidence of Jesus, then sceptics cannot point out why he is wrong to make that claim from NT writing such as Paul's letters? Only the HJ side is allowed to use the gospels and Paul’s letters saying its certain evidence of Jesus? And no sceptics are allowed to point out why their claims are wrong?

It’s not me or any other sceptics who are introducing Paul’s letters as evidence against Jesus. The fact of the matter is that the precise opposite is true - it’s the HJ side who are presenting Paul’s letters claiming that the words “the lords brother” are strong evidence of Jesus (Ehrman says that it’s a matter of “certainty”). But if the HJ side presents something like that as their evidence then it’s only right and proper that sceptics like me will point out why their evidence from Paul, i.e. the evidence they claim from Paul, is not the reliable or credible evidence that THEY claim it to be.

And as far as any comparison with Plato is concerned - we are not talking here about Plato! And afaik, Plato never claimed that the gospels and Paul’s letters provided evidence of a living Jesus! So please stop trying make bogus analogies to people like Plato who have absolutely nothing to do with the claimed evidence of Jesus from NT writing such as Paul’s letters.

Your analysis of intentions is inappropriate and out of place.
Your questions are rhetorical. They don't deserve any answer.
My position is different to Ehrman's position. You are discussing with me, not with Ehrman.

My point is that your maximalist position about what we can consider a reliable document in ancient texts blocks any discussion about the content of Pauline epistles.

1. Have you asserted that we don’t know who has writing the Pauline epistles nor in what date between the First and the Second Centuries? Yes or not? Of course, yes.

2. Have you maintained in this forum that a document is only valid when we know the author and its date -similar to legal criteria? Yes or not? Of course, yes.

3. Have you asserted that “we cannot know what any original writing actually said” (referred to the Pauline epistles)? Yes or not? Of course, yes.


Then, if we want continue discussing the problem of Jesus’ existence we can either let aside the Pauline epistles as irrelevant documents or reconsidering your criteria of dating. To deny any reliability to a document and to pretend continuing to discuss on this basis is illogical.

The Plato’s letters are pertinent here because they raise a similar problem to the authenticity than Pauline epistles. We don’t know the author of the extant manuscripts and its date is very distant of Plato's time. And the solution that philosophers and historians give to this problem is very different as yours about Pauline epistles. I understand you feel uncomfortable with this and you try to avoid it. But I hope you find better pretexts than claiming that Plato doesn't speak of Jesus. I find this a silly answer, sincerely. (I'm sorry if "silly" is too hard in English. I was searching for something similar to "tontería" in Spanish).